Why do patients with low back pain seek care at emergency department? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear why patients with low back pain seek care in emergency departments. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the demographic, physical, and psychological characteristics, and reasons for seeking care at emergency departments due to an episode of low back pain. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in an emergency department of a public hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, from September 2018 to May 2019. All patients who presented with a new episode of low back pain as the main complaint for seeking care at the emergency department on regular weekdays were invited to participate. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, general health characteristics, psychosocial risk factors, and reasons for visiting the emergency department. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients participated. We observed that most patients (68%) were women, with a mean age of 55 years, and who had previous episodes of low back pain (86%). Most patients went to the emergency department because they were worried about their pain (78%) and because they could not control their pain (73%). Patients also choose the emergency department because it is always available, it is free, and provided them good care. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with low back pain seek care at emergency departments because they were worried about their pain and because the department is always open and does not require appointment. Understanding these reasons is an important step for the implementation of future public policies to make health care more efficient, to reduce unnecessary expenses and to avoid low-value care.

Recurrence of an Episode of Low Back Pain: An Inception Cohort Study in Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the 1-year estimate of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in a cohort of people presenting to emergency departments who have recently recovered from an episode of acute LBP in a middle-income country, (2) estimate a recurrence of LBP stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), and (3) determine prognostic factors for the recurrence of LBP. DESIGN: Prospective inception cohort study. METHODS: We included 238 patients who presented to emergency departments with recent-onset nonspecific LBP in São Paulo, Brazil. The outcome was the recurrence of an episode of LBP, assessed using 2 definitions: (1) 12-month recall alone and (2) pain measurements at follow-up. Prognostic factors were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: Within 1 year, the estimated recurrence of an episode of LBP ranged from 35% (79/225 events) (first definition) to 44% (100/226 events) (second definition). When patients were stratified by the SBST, the estimate of recurrence ranged from 29% to 37% (21-27/73 events) for low-risk patients, from 33% to 39% (24-28/72 events) for medium-risk patients, and from 43% to 56% (34-45/80 events) for high-risk patients. Age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and disability were independent prognostic factors associated with LBP recurrence within 1 year. CONCLUSION: After recovering from a previous episode of acute LBP, 4 in every 10 patients experienced a recurrence within 1 year. This estimate varied depending on the classification used in the SBST. Within 1 year, age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and baseline disability were predictors of recurrence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):484-492. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10775.

Management of acute low back pain in emergency departments in São Paulo, Brazil: a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes. RESULTS: Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care. CONCLUSION: There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil.

The Long-Term Prognosis in People With Recent Onset Low Back Pain From Emergency Departments: An Inception Cohort Study.

Most studies investigating the course of recent-onset low back pain (LBP) included patients from primary care. We aimed to describe the prognosis in people with recent-onset LBP presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and to identify prognostic factors for nonrecovery. This inception cohort study with a 1-year follow-up recruited 600 consecutive acute LBP patients presenting to 4 EDs. The outcomes measured the days to recover from pain, recover from disability, return to previous work hours and duties, and complete recovery. Within 12 months, 73% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69-77) recovered from pain, 86% (95% CI = 82-90) recovered from disability, 79% (95% CI = 71-87) returned to previous work hours and duties, and 70% (95% CI = 66-74) completely recovered. The median recovery times were 67 days (95% CI = 54-80) to recover from pain, 37 days (95% CI = 31-43) to recover from disability, 37 days (95% CI = 25-49) to return to previous work hours and duties, and 70 days (95% CI = 57-83) to recover completely. Higher pain levels, a higher perceived risk of persistent LBP, more days of reduced activity due to LBP, more pain sites, and higher duration of LBP were associated with complete nonrecovery within 6 months. PERSPECTIVE: This information relates to prognosis and to likely recovery times for patients with recent-onset LBP in EDs. The findings also confirm previous factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with recent-onset LBP.

What triggers an episode of acute low back pain? A protocol of a replication case-crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe all the procedures of a study that will replicate a previous case-crossover study investigating physical and psychosocial transient exposure risk factors for triggering an episode of acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) at emergency departments in an emerging country. METHODS: This case-crossover study will recruit 350 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP seeking care at emergency departments from public hospitals in Brazil. We will collect information about exposure to a range of physical (eg, awkward postures, lifting children or animals, vigorous physical activity) and psychosocial triggers (eg, distraction, tiredness, alcohol consumption) that were examined in the previous study. The exposure to each trigger during the 2 hours preceding the onset of LBP (case window) will be compared with exposure in the 2-hour periods ending 24 (24-26 hours) and 48 (48-50 hours) hours before the onset of back pain (control window). Conditional logistic regression models will be built to estimate ORs expressing the magnitude of increased risk of developing LBP associated with each factor. DISCUSSION: This study will enable the confirmation of previous findings regarding transient exposure to factors that increase risk for an episode of acute LBP in a different setting (at emergency departments of an emerging country). To minimise the potential for recall bias, the maximum time between episode onset and interview will be 7 days; we will encourage participants to use their smartphones and diaries to remember the investigated period. Also, our interview script asked participants to nominate the key aspects of each day. Despite these efforts, the retrospective study design means it is not possible to completely exclude potential for recall bias. Furthermore, participants will be blinded to the case and control periods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (#20310219.8.0000.0064). Study findings will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.

Photobiomodulation therapy is not better than placebo in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been used in several musculoskeletal disorders to reduce pain, inflammation, and promoting tissue regeneration. The current evidence about the effects of PBMT on low back pain (LBP) is still conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the effects of PBMT against placebo on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP. This was a prospectively registered, randomised placebo-controlled trial, with blinded patients, therapists, and assessors. The study was conducted on an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Brazil, between April 2017 and May 2019. A total of 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomised to either active PBMT (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74). Patients from both groups received 12 treatment sessions, 3 times a week, for 4 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet based on "The Back Book." Clinical outcomes were measured at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 4 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability measured at 4 weeks. We estimated the treatment effects using linear mixed models following the principles of intention-to-treat. There was no clinical important between-group differences in terms of pain intensity (mean difference = 0.01 point; 95% confidence interval = -0.94 to 0.96) and disability (mean difference = -0.63 points; 95% confidence interval = -2.23 to 0.97) at 4 weeks. Patients did not report any adverse events. Photobiomodulation therapy was not better than placebo to reduce pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Use of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapy interventions.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries. OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial. METHODS: 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Duration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability.

Predicting pain recovery in patients with acute low back pain: a study protocol for a broad validation of a prognosis prediction model.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of acute low back pain (LBP) is generally favourable; however, there is significant variability in the prognosis of these patients. A clinical prediction model to predict the likelihood of pain recovery at three time points for patients with acute LBP has recently been developed. The aim of this study is to conduct a broad validation test of this clinical prediction model, by testing its performance in a new sample of patients and a different setting. METHODS: The validation study with a prospective cohort design will recruit 420 patients with recent onset non-specific acute LBP, with moderate pain intensity, seeking care in the emergency departments of hospitals in São Paulo, Brazil. The primary outcome measure will be days to recovery from pain. The predicted probability of pain recovery for each individual will be computed based on predictions of the development model and this will be used to test the performance (calibration and discrimination) in the validation dataset. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will better inform about the performance of the clinical prediction model, helping both clinicians and patients. If the model's performance is acceptable, then future research should evaluate the impact of the prediction model, assessing whether it produces a change in clinicians' behaviour and/or an improvement in patient outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, #20310419.4.0000.0064. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

A Responsiveness Analysis of the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool (SBST) screens patients with low back pain and directs them to different levels of physical therapy treatment. The SBST is also used to monitor changes in a range of modifiable prognostic factors. However, the current evidence on the responsiveness of the SBST is limited. OBJECTIVES: To test the responsiveness of the SBST at 6 weeks and 6 months. METHODS: This measurement property study is a secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies that included 348 participants with nonspecific low back pain. All participants were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. To detect clinical changes, the SBST was compared to 3 one-dimensional constructs: global perceived effect, disability, and pain intensity. To assess responsiveness, we tested 15 specific predefined hypotheses based on correlation, effect size, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. If 75% or more of the hypotheses were accepted, then responsiveness was considered to be high. RESULTS: Most of the hypotheses were accepted. Testing the SBST as a continuous score, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months, respectively. For medium- and high-risk subgroups, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months. The low-risk subgroup had 42.9% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 weeks and 100% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 months. CONCLUSION: The SBST had high responsiveness at 6 weeks in subgroups of patients with a medium and high risk, and poor responsiveness in those with a low risk, of persistent disability. The SBST has high responsiveness in all SBST subgroups at 6 months. Clinicians can confidently use the SBST to measure changes over time in terms of subgroups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Longitudinal clinical measurement, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):725-735. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8776.

The New Agenda for Neck Pain Research: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Though a large amount of research on neck pain has been conducted, no coordinated agenda has identified and addressed high-priority research questions. OBJECTIVES: To identify and rank the neck pain research priorities of neck pain researchers. METHODS: A total of 400 experts in the field of neck pain were invited to participate in this modified Delphi study. The study was conducted in 3 rounds. The first round aimed to identify the most important relevant questions that neck pain researchers should address. These questions were then categorized and ranked during the second and third rounds. RESULTS: A total of 117 experts agreed to participate (29% response rate). A total of 15 neck pain research priorities were identified. The top 5 research priorities were to (1) establish effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for neck pain, (2) translate research evidence into clinical settings, (3) identify the effectiveness of education and self-care in prevention and treatment of neck pain, (4) identify causal factors in the development of neck pain, and (5) define the natural course and prognostic factors in people with neck pain. CONCLUSION: A new research-priority agenda was developed through a consensus process from a group of neck pain researchers. This agenda can be used as a guide for researchers and funding agencies to ensure that future research addresses the most important research questions in this area. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(9):666-674. Epub 10 Jul 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8704.

A methodological survey on reporting of pilot and feasibility trials for physiotherapy interventions: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pilot and feasibility trials aim to test whether a full trial can be conducted or if any procedures must be changed for the full trial. Pilot trials must be reported in a transparent, accurate and complete way. In this report, we present a protocol for a methodological survey with the following aims: (1) to determine the percentage of physiotherapy trial reports which claim to be pilot or feasibility trials that evaluate feasibility, (2) to determine the aspect of feasibility evaluated in the primary objectives of the pilot or feasibility trials, (3) to describe the completeness of reporting of abstracts and full articles of pilot or feasibility trials using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials and (4) to investigate factors associated with completeness of reporting of pilot or feasibility trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Reports of randomised controlled trials indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) that claim to be pilot or feasibility trials and published in 2011-2017 will be included. Two independent reviewers will confirm eligibility and classify the aspect of feasibility being evaluated in the objectives of the included pilot or feasibility trials. Completeness of reporting of both the abstract and the full article will be evaluated using the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. The primary analysis will be a descriptive analysis about the reporting quality of abstracts and full texts of pilot and feasibility trials. We will use generalised estimating equation analysis to explore factors associated with completeness of reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this study will be disseminated by presentation at conferences and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical approval is not necessary for this study.

Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c.

Can demographic and anthropometric characteristics predict clinical improvement in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain?

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential prognostic factors that may predict clinical improvement of patients treated with different physical therapy interventions in the short-term. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. A total of 616 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain treated with interventions commonly used by physical therapists were included. These patients were selected from five randomized controlled trials. Multivariate linear regression models were used to verify if sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and marital status), anthropometric variables (height, body mass, and body mass index), or duration of low back pain, pain intensity at baseline, and disability at baseline could be associated with clinical outcomes of pain intensity and disability four weeks after baseline. RESULTS: The predictive variables for pain intensity were age (ß=0.01 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.03, p=0.03) and pain intensity at baseline (ß=0.23 points, 95% CI=0.13 to 0.33, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 4.6%. Similarly, the predictive variables for disability after four weeks were age (ß=0.03 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.06, p=0.01) and disability at baseline (ß=0.71 points, 95% CI=0.65 to 0.78, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 42.1%. CONCLUSION: Only age, pain at baseline and disability at baseline influenced the pain intensity and disability after four weeks of treatment. The beta coefficient for age was statistically significant, but the magnitude of this association was very small and not clinically important.

Reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy System in Patients With Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: An updated summary of the evidence for the reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) system in patients with spinal pain is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence on the intrarater and interrater reliability of MDT in patients with spinal pain. METHODS: Searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, and Scopus were conducted for this systematic review. We included any study design as long as reliability of the MDT method was tested in patients with spinal pain. We collected data on the reliability of MDT to identify main and subsyndromes, directional preference, the centralization phenomenon, and lateral shift. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability and the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies checklists. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (8 studies on back pain, pooled n = 2160 patients; 3 studies on neck pain, pooled n = 45 patients; and 3 studies recruited mixed spinal conditions, pooled n = 389 patients). Studies investigating patients with back pain reported kappa estimates ranging from 0.26 to 1.00 (main and subsyndromes), 0.27 to 0.90 (directional preference), and 0.11 to 0.70 (centralization phenomenon). Kappa estimates for studies investigating neck pain ranged from 0.47 to 0.84 (main and subsyndromes) and 0.46 (directional preference). In mixed populations, kappa estimates ranged from 0.56 to 0.96 (main and subsyndromes). CONCLUSION: The MDT system appears to have acceptable interrater reliability for classifying patients with back pain into main and subsyndromes when applied by therapists who have completed the credentialing examination, but unacceptable reliability in other therapists. We found conflicting evidence regarding the reliability of the MDT system in patients with neck pain or mixed pain locations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):923-933. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7876.

Methodologic Quality and Statistical Reporting of Physical Therapy Randomized Controlled Trials Relevant to Musculoskeletal Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the methodologic quality and statistical reporting of reports of trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) classified in the musculoskeletal subdiscipline, and to analyze the characteristics of the trials that can predict trial report quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. We randomly selected 19% of trials coded as musculoskeletal from PEDro. Methodologic quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. We assessed aspects of the trial using 9 items from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. We performed multivariate linear regression analysis models to predict the total PEDro score. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: A total of 1404 articles were included in the analysis. The mean total PEDro scale score was 5.27±1.63 points, which reflects low methodologic quality. There was a slight improvement in the quality of articles over time. The characteristics that predicted the total PEDro scale score were endorsement of the CONSORT statement, sample size calculation, lower number of primary outcomes, evaluation of electrotherapy as intervention, if the trial reported the research design in the title, reporting of participant flow diagram, years since publication (most recent trials), and trials published in English. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the trials in musculoskeletal physical therapy is suboptimal. The use of reporting checklists (eg, CONSORT statement) should be mandatory in all journals. Journal reviewers and journal editors should also use the CONSORT statement during the review process.

McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised placebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is one of the exercise approaches recommended by low back pain (LBP) guidelines. We investigated the efficacy of MDT compared with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: This was a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo controlled trial, with a blinded assessor. A total of 148 patients seeking care for chronic LBP were randomly allocated to either MDT (n=74) or placebo (n=74). Patients from both groups received 10 treatment sessions over 5 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet. Clinical outcomes were obtained at the end of treatment (5 weeks) and 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (5 weeks). We also conducted a subgroup analysis to identify potential treatment effect modifiers that could predict a better response to MDT treatment. RESULTS: The MDT group had greater improvements in pain intensity at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -1.00, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.01) but not for disability (MD -0.84, 95% CI -2.62 to 0.93). We did not detect between-group differences for any secondary outcomes, nor were any treatment effect modifiers identified. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found a small and likely not clinically relevant difference in pain intensity favouring the MDT method immediately at the end of 5 weeks of treatment but not for disability. No other difference was found for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at any follow-up times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02123394).

Effects of photobiomodulation therapy in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the largest and most frequent public health problems worldwide. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is a frequently used non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is little high-quality scientific evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of PBMT in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP in the short, medium and long term. Therefore, the objective of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effects of PBMT in patients with chronic non-specific LBP in the short, medium and long term. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo-controlled trial with blinded patients, assessors and treatment providers. One hundred and forty-eight patients with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited. Treatment sessions will be provided three times a week for 4 weeks (totaling 12 sessions) with patients receiving either placebo or active PBMT. For ethical reasons, all patients, regardless of treatment allocation, will also receive an information booklet based on 'The Back Book'. Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline, at the end of treatment, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured after 12 sessions of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation, in addition to specific disability and global perceived effect in all time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Cidade de São Paulo. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and presentations at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03089424.

Observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment in workers: a systematic review / Métodos observacionais para avaliar riscos biomecânicos em trabalhadores: uma revisão sistemática

Abstract Introduction: Among the methods of measurement of the biomechanical risk factors available in the literature, the observational methods have greater applicability in occupational practice. Objective: To identify observational methods used in Brazilian workers to identify and to evaluate their translation/cross-cultural adaptation procedures and measuring property tests. Methods: Three search strategies were used in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and SCIELO. After a review of titles and abstracts, potential articles were read in full for inclusion and subsequent extraction of data related to translation, cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the observational methods. Results: 5349 potential studies were found and 29 were eligible for inclusion. The methods used in Brazilian workers were: AET, NIOSH, OCRA, OWAS, QEC, RARME, REBA and RULA. All procedures regarding the translation and cross-cultural adaptation were positive for the QEC and REBA. The translation, synthesis of the translations and review committee procedures were doubtful for the OCRA method. The QEC measuring properties showed negative reliability, doubtful internal consistency, and positive agreement and construct validity. The REBA showed negative reliability and agreement. The RARME presented positive reliability and negative construct validity. Conclusion: For most observational methods used in Brazilian workers, the translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedures were not performed and their measurement properties were not performed, highlighting the need to perform these procedures before using them.

Resumo Introdução: Dentre os métodos de mensuração dos fatores de risco biomecânicos disponíveis na literatura, os métodos observacionais apresentam maior aplicabilidade na prática ocupacional. Objetivo: Localizar métodos observacionais - utilizados em trabalhadores brasileiros, identificar e avaliar seus procedimentos de tradução/adaptação transcultural e testes de propriedades de medida. Métodos: Foram utilizadas três estratégias de busca nas bases de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS e SCIELO. Após análise de títulos e resumos, os artigos potenciais foram lidos na integra para serem incluídos, e posterior extração dos dados da tradução, adaptação transcultural e propriedades de medida dos métodos observacionais. Resultados: Encontrados 5349 estudos em potencial e 29 incluídos. Os métodos utilizados em trabalhadores brasileiros foram: AET, NIOSH, OCRA, OWAS, QEC, RARME, REBA e RULA. O QEC e o REBA apresentaram todas as etapas de tradução e adaptação positivas. O OCRA apresentou tradução, síntese das traduções e comitê de revisão duvidosos. As propriedades de medida do QEC apresentaram confiabilidade negativa, consistência interna duvidosa, concordância positiva. O REBA apresentou confiabilidade e concordância negativa. O RARME apresentou confiabilidade positiva e validade de construto negativa. Conclusão: A maioria dos métodos utilizados em trabalhadores brasileiros não efetuaram os procedimentos de tradução, adaptação transcultural e teste de propriedades de medida, ressaltando a necessidade de realizar esses procedimentos antes de utilizá-los.

Longitudinal Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain During Physical Therapy Treatment Using the STarT Back Screening Tool.

Study Design Preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Background The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) was developed to screen and to classify patients with low back pain into subgroups for the risk of having a poor prognosis. However, this classification at baseline does not take into account variables that can influence the prognosis during treatment or over time. Objectives (1) To investigate the changes in risk subgroup measured by the SBST over a period of 6 months, and (2) to assess the long-term predictive ability of the SBST when administered at different time points. Methods Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n = 148) receiving physical therapy care as part of a randomized trial were analyzed. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were collected at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Changes in SBST risk classification were calculated. Hierarchical linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders were built to analyze the predictive capabilities of the SBST when administered at different time points. Results A large proportion of patients (60.8%) changed their risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care. The SBST improved the prediction for all 6-month outcomes when using the 5-week risk subgroup and the difference between baseline and 5-week subgroup, after controlling for potential confounders. The SBST at baseline did not improve the predictive ability of the models after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion This study shows that many patients change SBST risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care, and that the predictive ability of the SBST in patients with chronic low back pain increases when administered at different time points. Level of Evidence Prognosis, 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):314-323. Epub 29 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7199.

Kinesio Taping Does Not Provide Additional Benefits in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Who Receive Exercise and Manual Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Background Many clinical practice guidelines endorse both manual therapy and exercise as effective treatment options for patients with low back pain. To optimize the effects of the treatments recommended by the guidelines, a new intervention known as Kinesio Taping is being widely used in these patients. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain when added to a physical therapy program consisting of exercise and manual therapy. Methods One hundred forty-eight patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomly allocated to receive 10 (twice weekly) sessions of physical therapy, consisting of exercise and manual therapy, or the same treatment with the addition of Kinesio Taping applied to the lower back. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability (5 weeks after randomization) and the secondary outcomes were pain intensity, disability (3 months and 6 months after randomization), global perceived effect, and satisfaction with care (5 weeks after treatment). Data were collected by a blinded assessor. Results No between-group differences were observed in the primary outcomes of pain intensity (mean difference, -0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.88, 0.85) or disability (mean difference, 1.14 points; 95% CI: -0.85, 3.13) at 5 weeks' follow-up. In addition, no between-group differences were observed for any of the other outcomes evaluated, except for disability 6 months after randomization (mean difference, 2.01 points; 95% CI: 0.03, 4.00) in favor of the control group. Conclusion Patients who received a physical therapy program consisting of exercise and manual therapy did not get additional benefit from the use of Kinesio Taping. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered May 28, 2013 at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01866332). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):506-513. Epub 6 Jun 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6590.